In the prior art, it is already known to use a straight 2.sup.n progression to determine the flow capacities of solenoid valves and orifices. The 2.sup.n concept functions well and is fundamentally valid. However, it has a number of drawbacks, and it is useful here to discuss these in greater detail.
Firstly, the 2.sup.n progression (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc.) requires a substantial number of solenoid valves. Naturally, the greater the number of solenoid valves, the greater is the cost in terms of additional solenoids, additional electrical driver channels, and a larger valve body. Also, the greater the number of solenoids, the greater the amount of electrical power that it requires.
The second drawback relates to the fact that, utilizing a straight 2.sup.n progression, the smallest valve orifice is so tiny as to be difficult to machine (i.e. drill breakage, expensive EDM'ing, etc.).
A further drawback is that the largest orifice in the prior system may be difficult to open electromagnetically. Nominally, 50% of the total flow in this prior art system is provided by the largest orifice. Even if the largest orifice deviates from the 2.sup.n rule to accommodate manufacturing issues, it would be common for the largest orifice to provide 36%-50% of the total rated flow. It is also well known that the larger the orifice to be opened (all other things being equal), the greater the electromagnetic force required to open it.
A final drawback of this prior system relates to the frequency at which the valves must be seated. Any design which could decrease the frequency of valve seating would improve the life expectancy of the system.
Another prior approach, as exemplified in U.S. Pat. No. 5,150,690, issued Sep. 29, 1992, uses a combination of two or more equal-flow-rate pulsing valves and one or more bi-stable valves in a modified 2.sup.n progression. The latter concept is functional and fundamentally valid, however it also has four notable drawbacks, which are summarized below.
The first drawback is that the system is not efficient if continuous flow is required, i.e. requires a larger number of solenoids to accomplish the same flow. In the latter case, the first three solenoid valves must be operated as bi-stable flow devices. In that situation, the first three solenoids would have the maximum total flow capacity of 4.multidot.Q1 (i.e. Q1+Q1+2Q1). By comparison, the concept first above discussed would have a total capacity of 7.multidot.Q1 (Q1+2Q1+4Q1). (NOTE: For the present invention to have a minimum flow capacity (and increment) of Q1, its first 3 solenoids would typically be tri-stable and would typically have a total capacity of 26.multidot.Q1 (2Q1+6Q1+18Q1). As will be seen from the descriptive material below, the present invention allows the system to utilize two or three less solenoids than the prior development discussed in this section.)
A further drawback of the approach exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 5,150,690 relates to the fact that pulsing solenoids limit the life expectancy of the system. In applications having long periods of continuous (steady) flow demand, the use of pulsing solenoids dramatically reduces the life of the total system (i.e. life to rebuild). For example, if a solenoid were pulsed at 60 Hz for 3 minutes, during which time the flow demand were unchanged, the valve would have experienced 10,800 seatings where none were "required".
A further drawback relates to the fact that commercially available pulsing solenoids are usable only in a narrow range of pressures and flows. Due to the high number of valve seatings expected during the product's life, commercially available pulsing solenoids tend to have metal-to-metal seats. In fact, the most common devices may be liquid fuel injectors adapted for this purpose. However, such devices are very capital intensive to produce and thus are targeted on a narrow range of working pressures and flows (typically 15-150 psig pressure and equivalent orifice diameters of &lt;0.056"). Notably, pulsating solenoids for industrial use may be employed in applications ranging from 15-3000 psig and flow rates from 500 SCFH to 500,000 SCFH. Due to the capital intensive nature of these devices, pulsing solenoid (injector) manufacturers tend to be willing to change design features (working pressure, working voltage, orifice area) only for very high volumes that are not foreseeable for this type of product. As a result, pulsing injectors are not regarded as feasible for industrial use.
Another drawback is that pulsing solenoids are sensitive to manufacturing tolerances (orifice diameter and stroke), and are thus expensive. Pulsing solenoids, as mentioned above, tend to have a metal-to-metal seat. As a result, surface contours are held to very tight tolerances (especially if the seat is spherical), surface finishes are exceptionally smooth, and the sealing parts are most commonly lapped (i.e. with diamond grit) to achieve acceptable sealing capability. In most instances, the flow is controlled by a combination of orifice diameter and valve stroke. In manufacture, the production line systems measure, set, and stake the stroke to provide the nominal flow rate of each individual injector (solenoid). Further, as such devices are intended for ultra high speed uses where a few hundred microseconds are critical to performance, a second adjustment is usually made on each production line piece to adjust a spring pre-load that controls valve opening/closing time. The net result is that, even at volumes of millions per year, such devices are expensive. At low volumes, such as would be expected for digital gas metering, these devices are exceptionally expensive (i.e. if an off-the-shelf part cannot be used).